Re: [Vo]:Inspiration

[integral.property.serv...@gmail.com]

Nickel cited previously several times.

Example:

"AnonymousDecember 18, 2011 12:42 PM 



Used LiH from 
http://www.sigmaaldrich.com/catalog/ProductDetail.do?lang=en&N4=201049|ALDRICH&N5=SEARCH_CONCAT_PNO|BRAND_KEY&F=SPEC

nano-nickel-copper from http://www.canfuo.com/NanoNi-Cu.html
LiBH4 from 
http://www.sigmaaldrich.com/catalog/ProductDetail.do?lang=en&N4=222356|ALDRICH&N5=SEARCH_CONCAT_PNO|BRAND_KEY&F=SPEC
and Fe powder from 
http://www.sigmaaldrich.com/catalog/ProductDetail.do?N4=267953|ALDRICH&N5=SEARCH_CONCAT_PNO|BRAND_KEY&F=SPEC
mixed in unequal proportions (Proprietary). Using glove box with 
previously suggested barbecue propane bleed the mix was loaded into 
8"lengths of Cu tube welded shut on bottom. Vice pinched and welded 
closed at the top, 4 tubes were loaded into a "Chan" oil bath with 
resistant heater and pumped with an RFG. The temperature rose as 
expected at a steady rate until 80 C where a strong acceleration of rate 
showed on the computer screen associated with the thermocouple. I 
Immediately cut all power. It kept rising. Maximum oil circulation 
through radiator was not able to control it. I circulated cold water 
through a copper emergency coil previously placed in the oil bath. This 
finally worked. To control and contain this untamed LENR I will now 
switch to the "Chan" oil dispersion technique which should provide 
greater control and safer operation."


I understand this experimenter died in an explosion during his 
experimentation.


Regards,

Reliable

RE: [Vo]:Inspiration

[MarkI-ZeroPoint]

The thing is Dave, whatever you want to call it, the vacuum/ZPF/quantum 
foam/Dirac Sea exists… when, how and why it might interact with matter and 
cause an *apparent* violation of COE is anyone’s guess at this time… I know 
Fran says it is constantly interacting, and Puthoff has published that it’s the 
reason the electron doesn’t spiral into the nucleus, but that would be 
equilibrium conditions.  I think there are non-eq conditions where a massive 
coupling of E from the vacuum to matter can happen, albeit, only under very 
specific and rare conditions.

 

How can one definitively say that they have a closed system?  If you can’t 
measure ALL possible sources of E, then all you can justify is a probabilistic 
answer; you have to leave the COE door open a crack because of the vacuum! 

 

Ok, ok… I’m stepping down off the Dime Box now… besides, those Perfect 
Manhattans I put in the freezer should be just about right by now... ya’ll have 
a gr8 weekend.

 

-Mark

 

From: David Roberson [mailto:dlrober...@aol.com] 
Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2012 6:09 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Inspiration

 

That is a good thought to keep in mind.  We need to ensure that our chosen 
system is adequate to handle the problem at hand.

 

Dave

-Original Message-
From: MarkI-ZeroPoint 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Thu, Aug 16, 2012 8:56 pm
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Inspiration

RE: COE…

 

Start here:

http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg57015.html

 

COE begins with the phrase, "IN A CLOSED SYSTEM, ..."

For sci-drones this phrase didn’t seem to stick!  All they remember is the 
other half of the law…  

The second half of the law cannot be applied defensibly without the first half.

 

http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg66744.html

 

-mark iverson

 

 

From: David Roberson [mailto:dlrober...@aol.com <mailto:dlrober...@aol.com?> ] 
Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2012 4:30 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Inspiration

 

I must be in the minority here with my expectation that COE must be at least 
nearly correct.  Perhaps that is my hang up!

 

If devices of this nature are real then why in the world would NASA not be 
using the principle to power their space craft?   I refer to the ones that are 
drifting in space, not launch.

 

Dave 

-Original Message-
From: Jones Beene 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Thu, Aug 16, 2012 7:23 pm
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Inspiration

This brings up an interesting side issue. 
 
All of these devices: Brown, Hubbard, Papp, etc seemed to squeeze more
energy out of small amounts of radium (or other emitter) than should be
there. Finding out why could be an interesting pursuit.
 
If we wanted to invoke more anecdote in a similar vein, there was a guy
named Perreault here years ago who claimed to have run a couple of 100 watt
bulbs for months off of a Hubbard-like device that he fueled with a tiny
amount of radium - which had been scrapped off of an old clock dial.
Couldn't have been more than a milligram.
 
This tale has as much credence as Bob Rohner's motor being able to
self-power for an extended period - unless of course - BR has done the smart
thing - and provided a way to get a bit of radioisotope into the device.
Americium perhaps? 
 
Why not? If you were really copying Papp - why would you leave out the most
important ingredient?
 
-Original Message-
From: Terry Blanton 
 
> There is no doubt it worked, and little doubt that the reason it worked
had
> a lot to do with radium... same as the Papp engine.
 
Eric might like to examine the Paul Brown Battery also:
 
http://www.rexresearch.com/nucell/nucell.htm
 
 
T
 
 
 

Re: [Vo]:Inspiration

[Axil Axil]

http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Plasma_Energy_Controls_Plasma_Expansion_Motor

This link shows the Papp engine under a dyno test showing just over 450 HP.
They would need to run some heavy cable to power that engine with an
electric motor to product that type of power.

There is mention of a report of an independent dyno test done by a
university. I will look for the reference.

Before anyone should invest in the Papp engine, they would want to see a
long running dyno test with all the electric power accounted for.

Cheers:  Axil


On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 10:03 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
wrote:

> At 12:38 PM 8/16/2012, Jones Beene wrote:
>
>> Eric,
>>
>> I hope that you would not call that video a ringing endorsement. How many
>> "ifs" does one need to overlook before a polite comment becomes a bona
>> fide
>> endorsement? There is a large gap between "taking an interest" in a
>> technology and investing your life's savings in it - or even in promoting
>> it
>> without doing due diligence. I will repeat my comment so that there is no
>> equivocation: Only a gullible person would invest in Bob Rohner's company
>> at
>> this point in time, since there is no proof of concept, and really no
>> proof
>> of anything - McKubre notwithstanding.
>>
>
> Unless the investor knows something we don't know. Maybe. Hey, folks, if
> you are thinking of investing in Rohner's company, as such, why not ask
> here, telling us what you know? You'll get some wacky and some
> pseudoskeptical opinions, but ... you might also get some good questions to
> ask.
>
> Of course, if you have information under nondisclosure, you might not be
> able to ask here, and you might have to hire your own experts to do due
> diligence, or just trust your gut. Just realize that a lot of people
> trusted their gut with Joseph Papp, and ended up with a gut with no shirt
> over it, since their shirt went bye-bye and wasn't found again.
>
>
>  Can one be an independent endorser if one has a financial interest in the
>> outcome - such as sitting on the Board, or holding stock in another
>> Papp-engine company? As you may or may not know, in addition to the two
>> feuding Rohner brothers and Sabori, there are two other completely
>> independent groups which have been pursuing the Papp engine over the
>> years.
>> That makes five groups that are known, and probably a few that are under
>> the
>> radar. McKubre is known to have past ties to one of them. That may not
>> mean
>> anything negative now, and it could be positive if he has jumped ship to
>> Rohner, but that is not what is being said.
>>
>
> McKubre's comments were heavily qualified. I trust McKubre, though I don't
> agree with everything he said.
>
>
>  No group has demonstrated a self-running Papp device to an independent
>> observer AFAIK, yet they all want to give the impression to investors that
>> it is possible, but for them only - based more on anecdote than proof.
>>
>
> The requirement for a "self-running Papp device" is a *demonstration*
> requirement. It is not needed for an evaluation of the *effect.* What is
> needed for that is independent replication of the operation of the engine,
> specifically, of a single pistion. That toy kit actually should be
> adequate, if it works. That doesn't demonstrate commercial readiness, it's
> only about the science. It's really the same with cold fusion. The demand
> for high output and reliability greatly confuses the science, which doesn't
> require such things. They are required for commerical applications.
>
> Cold fusion is real. We know that. However, being real is not enough for
> commercial application. Period. Muon-catalyzed fusion is real, nobody
> questions that, but it will probably *never* be ready for any commercial
> applications. Pons-Fleischmann electrochemical cold fusion is real, it
> actually transmutes deuterium to helium, producing the right amount of
> energy from that, but it's a terribly messy and very difficult to control
> approach, and will probably never be commercially useful. NiH, on the other
> hand ... but with NiH (i.e., Rossi et al), we don't have the independent
> replications and the clear identification of the ash that we have for PdD.
>
> Basically, folks, don't jump the gun unless you are prepared to shoot
> yourself in the foot. When we don't know, we don't know!
>
>
>   And
>> almost any engine manufacturer will sign a license agreement to produce an
>> inventor's advanced engine at some future date and pay the inventor a
>> commission, but only when the inventor first proves that it is working.
>> That
>> license means nothing when there is no upfront money changing hands.
>>
>
> That's right. Often these licenses are announced, but they actually mean
> almost nothing.
>
>
>  Randell
>> Mills signed up a half dozen "licensees" to produce grid power from his
>> invention- but Catch-22: only when he proves it is ready for prime time.
>> No
>> money changed hands, and no power is being supplied to the

RE: [Vo]:Inspiration

[MarkI-ZeroPoint]

“I am open to most ideas and inclined to speculate about how some work even if 
they seem "out of this world".  I rely on the COE as a guide.  If it appears to 
be violated I get nervous.”

 

Excellent!  Nervous is a *reasonable* reaction to have… just don’t let that 
nervousness prevent you from following a faint trail into the unknown… it may 
lead nowhere, in which case you’ve gotten some much needed exercise, or, it may 
lead to a hidden spring of fresh clean water to drink from!  Either way, you 
win… both are healthy!  The sci-drones immediately use the COE filter and never 
even consider the journey…  

 

Vorts tend to get a lot of exercise!!!  J  Which just makes us even more 
thirsty… 

 

If you want to search the Collective’s memory, use this link:

http://www.mail-archive.com/search?l=vortex-l@eskimo.com&a=1&haswords=

 

-Mark

 

From: David Roberson [mailto:dlrober...@aol.com] 
Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2012 5:46 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Inspiration

 

The first problem to be overcome is to make a working prototype to demonstrate 
to others.  Do you believe that the NASA guys are so closed minded that they 
would not even take a look at an operating device?  That would be very sad.

 

I am open to most ideas and inclined to speculate about how some work even if 
they seem "out of this world".  I rely on the COE as a guide.  If it appears to 
be violated I get nervous.

 

It was suggested that the radioactive material can have its half life greatly 
reduced under controlled circumstances.  I can work with this thought as 
possible, but strange.  If that allows the energy release to be adequate to 
supply the requirements without violation of COE, then perhaps so.

 

Dave

-Original Message-
From: MarkI-ZeroPoint 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Thu, Aug 16, 2012 8:31 pm
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Inspiration

“If devices of this nature are real then why in the world would NASA not be 
using the principle to power their spacecraft?”

 

Because they immediately dismiss the possibility before testing it… that’s what 
sci-drones do.  They use theory, and the long line of actual scammers and 
fraudsters to easily dismiss that which starts to cause cognitive dissonance.

  Or,

They tried to replicate (e.g., gravity shielding), but in many instances the 
rogues were not completely open, and details were not available to replicate… 
so it too died.  Perhaps it was better that way, since the human species was 
not ready for that level of knowledge… we’d have incinerated the planet!  And 
with the likes of the nut-case in Iran, we may still do so…

 

RE: NASA…

Even if one of their scientists went to an Extraordinary Science conference, 
saw a device that he could not explain, and was allowed to examine it for 
possible fraud, what are his chances of getting anyone to take it seriously 
back at NASA?  “And you saw this where?”…  If the conference isn’t populated 
with mostly PhDs, your colleagues aren’t going to take it seriously… and look 
at LENR… its attendees are nearly all PhDs and they couldn’t get any serious 
consideration after the hatchet job done back in 89  --  that effect has lasted 
for over 20 years.

 

I’ll respond to the COE question in a min, but it has been covered by the 
Collective since BC…. Before the Collective.

J

-Mark

 

From: David Roberson [mailto:dlrober...@aol.com <mailto:dlrober...@aol.com?> ] 
Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2012 4:30 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Inspiration

 

I must be in the minority here with my expectation that COE must be at least 
nearly correct.  Perhaps that is my hang up!

 

If devices of this nature are real then why in the world would NASA not be 
using the principle to power their space craft?   I refer to the ones that are 
drifting in space, not launch.

 

Dave 

-Original Message-
From: Jones Beene 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Thu, Aug 16, 2012 7:23 pm
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Inspiration

This brings up an interesting side issue. 
 
All of these devices: Brown, Hubbard, Papp, etc seemed to squeeze more
energy out of small amounts of radium (or other emitter) than should be
there. Finding out why could be an interesting pursuit.
 
If we wanted to invoke more anecdote in a similar vein, there was a guy
named Perreault here years ago who claimed to have run a couple of 100 watt
bulbs for months off of a Hubbard-like device that he fueled with a tiny
amount of radium - which had been scrapped off of an old clock dial.
Couldn't have been more than a milligram.
 
This tale has as much credence as Bob Rohner's motor being able to
self-power for an extended period - unless of course - BR has done the smart
thing - and provided a way to get a bit of radioisotope into the device.
Americium perhaps? 
 
Why not? If you were really copying Papp - why would you leave out the most
important ingredient?
 
-Original Message-
From: Terry Blanton 
 
> There is no doubt

Re: [Vo]:Inspiration

[Harry Veeder]

On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 8:56 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint  wrote:
> RE: COE…
>
>
>
> Start here:
>
> http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg57015.html
>
>
>
> COE begins with the phrase, "IN A CLOSED SYSTEM, ..."
>
> For sci-drones this phrase didn’t seem to stick!  All they remember is the
> other half of the law…
>
> The second half of the law cannot be applied defensibly without the first
> half.
>
>
>
> http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg66744.html
>
>
>
> -mark iverson
>


COE can always be saved by changing the boundaries of system so COE
will never be proven incorrect or inadequate along these lines. Where
it might be proven incorrect is the assumption that all forms of
energy are equivalent in the sense that they are all interconvertable.

Harry

Re: [Vo]:Inspiration

[David Roberson]

That is a good thought to keep in mind.  We need to ensure that our chosen 
system is adequate to handle the problem at hand.

Dave


-Original Message-
From: MarkI-ZeroPoint 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Thu, Aug 16, 2012 8:56 pm
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Inspiration



RE: COE…
 
Start here:
http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg57015.html
 
COE begins with the phrase, "IN A CLOSED SYSTEM, ..."
For sci-drones this phrase didn’t seem to stick!  All they remember is the 
other half of the law…  
The second half of the law cannot be applied defensibly without the first half.
 
http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg66744.html
 
-mark iverson
 
 

From: David Roberson [mailto:dlrober...@aol.com] 
Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2012 4:30 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Inspiration

 

I must be in the minority here with my expectation that COE must be at least 
nearly correct.  Perhaps that is my hang up!

 

If devices of this nature are real then why in the world would NASA not be 
using the principle to power their space craft?   I refer to the ones that are 
drifting in space, not launch.

 

Dave 

-Original Message-
From: Jones Beene 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Thu, Aug 16, 2012 7:23 pm
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Inspiration

This brings up an interesting side issue. 
 
All of these devices: Brown, Hubbard, Papp, etc seemed to squeeze more
energy out of small amounts of radium (or other emitter) than should be
there. Finding out why could be an interesting pursuit.
 
If we wanted to invoke more anecdote in a similar vein, there was a guy
named Perreault here years ago who claimed to have run a couple of 100 watt
bulbs for months off of a Hubbard-like device that he fueled with a tiny
amount of radium - which had been scrapped off of an old clock dial.
Couldn't have been more than a milligram.
 
This tale has as much credence as Bob Rohner's motor being able to
self-power for an extended period - unless of course - BR has done the smart
thing - and provided a way to get a bit of radioisotope into the device.
Americium perhaps? 
 
Why not? If you were really copying Papp - why would you leave out the most
important ingredient?
 
-Original Message-
From: Terry Blanton 
 
> There is no doubt it worked, and little doubt that the reason it worked
had
> a lot to do with radium... same as the Papp engine.
 
Eric might like to examine the Paul Brown Battery also:
 
http://www.rexresearch.com/nucell/nucell.htm
 
 
T
 
 
 


 

Re: [Vo]:Inspiration

[Axil Axil]

Converting Atomic Energy Into Utilizable Kinetic Energy". Papp used radium,
notably.

The Radioactive element used in the Papp type engine is thorium an alpha
emitter, not radium. The purpose for the use of this radioactive element in
the Papp engine is to ionize the nobel gas to set it up to conduct the
spark. This is done to keep the voltage of the spark as low as possible. In
the Papp engine, the spark voltage is 40KV. In Papp’s day, high voltage
spark technology was limited.

In the John Rohner(JR) engine like Rossi’s reactor, the use of a powered
radioactive element is not used as a result of political and certification
issues.  JR uses 110 KV and he gets it up to 440KV in a way that I do not
yet understand. With these high voltages he does not need much ionization
to start the spark. He also uses a RF generator which sets up the nobel gas
for ionization; it makes the spark through the noble gas more conductive.
One contradiction that JR has is as follows. He says he uses a
tungsten/thorium welding rod as the anode. This contradicts his statement
that he uses no radioactive elements in his reactor. Maybe he is down on
radioactive thorium dust which is dangerous and is inexact in his manner of
speaking.


Cheers: Axil






On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 4:15 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:

> From: Axil Axil
>
> *   First, since Papp technology is open source, and intellectual
> property is not an issue, the lawyers are not going to get very far.
>
> What makes you think it is open source? In fact, this appears not to be the
> case. There are several patents in effect, even if Papp's original IP has
> expired. Note that his original IP is entitled: "Method & Means of
> Converting Atomic Energy Into Utilizable Kinetic Energy". Papp used radium,
> notably.
>
> *   Next IMHO, Bob Rohner is not capable of getting the Papp engine to
> commercialization.
>
> That much is true.
>
> *   Next, the Papp engine should be rightly feared by LENR advocates
> because it will make most of the known LENR technology obsolete. In this
> state of affairs, the LENR community will tend to disparage it; it's human
> nature.
>
> Absurd ! This is completely unscientific bogosity. Nobody "fears" it
> because
> there is nothing to fear. There is no data in the last 20 years that shows
> it has worked since the time of Papp. I agree that it did work then and
> that
> the reason is known. Your Nobel gas cluster idea was shot down in flames -
> and to be frank - this whole episode is really becoming a joke and a
> distraction to new technology that does work.
>
> *   Finally, the engine that Feynman saw was self-powered, that is why
> it ran away.
>
> Even if that is partly true historically, the engine has not been
> duplicated
> since Papp's time and for a very good reason. Papp used radioactive
> isotopes, most radium - which are not obtainable now, and consequently his
> version of the engine will never be duplicated in the way Papp was able to
> do it.
>
> *   Papp was intent on showing a perpetual motion device and he cross
> wired the cylinders so they each fed power the other. This feedback setup
> resulted in an accelerating positive feedback loop and a man was killed by
> it.
>
> Since nuclear isotopes were Papp's power source, this disqualifies
> "perpetual motion". The feedback scenario is a guess without any underlying
> justification, other than that it relates to Hubbard. All that we know for
> fact is that Feynman unplugged it while running, it exploded and a
> bystander
> was killed, Cal Tech was sued and paid the estate of the victim a large
> sum.
> Following that tragedy, the engine was never shown independently to run
> again. It is possible the victim ingested radioactive materials but that
> was
> covered up in the settlement agreement.
>
> It is ludicrous to think that anyone in LENR "fears" the modern versions of
> Papp technology, because there is nothing to it without the radium and
> other
> isotopes. Papp invented a new kind of nuclear reactor - END OF STORY.
>
> Except for this: If you want to investigate a better device than Papp,
> which
> also used the same or similar radioactive isotopes for large apparent gain
> being dependent on a proper coil - and probably very similar to Papp -
> investigate the Hubbard coil:
>
> http://www.rexresearch.com/hubbard/hubbard.htm
>
> There is no doubt it worked, and little doubt that the reason it worked had
> a lot to do with radium... same as the Papp engine. The Hubbard coil has
> the
> distinct advantage of being solid state and needing no noble gasses.
>
> There is a glaring cross-connection of Hubbard's design to the original
> Papp
> engine via the coil. Do you think this is coincidental? Note also the
> details that are seen in the foundation of Josef Papp's work: US Patent #
> 3,670,494; "Method & Means of Converting Atomic Energy Into Utilizable
> Kinetic Energy" and this is clearly based on converting radium and similar
> isotopes into electri

RE: [Vo]:Inspiration

[Abd ul-Rahman Lomax]

At 12:38 PM 8/16/2012, Jones Beene wrote:

Eric,

I hope that you would not call that video a ringing endorsement. How many
"ifs" does one need to overlook before a polite comment becomes a bona fide
endorsement? There is a large gap between "taking an interest" in a
technology and investing your life's savings in it - or even in promoting it
without doing due diligence. I will repeat my comment so that there is no
equivocation: Only a gullible person would invest in Bob Rohner's company at
this point in time, since there is no proof of concept, and really no proof
of anything - McKubre notwithstanding.


Unless the investor knows something we don't know. Maybe. Hey, folks, 
if you are thinking of investing in Rohner's company, as such, why 
not ask here, telling us what you know? You'll get some wacky and 
some pseudoskeptical opinions, but ... you might also get some good 
questions to ask.


Of course, if you have information under nondisclosure, you might not 
be able to ask here, and you might have to hire your own experts to 
do due diligence, or just trust your gut. Just realize that a lot of 
people trusted their gut with Joseph Papp, and ended up with a gut 
with no shirt over it, since their shirt went bye-bye and wasn't found again.



Can one be an independent endorser if one has a financial interest in the
outcome - such as sitting on the Board, or holding stock in another
Papp-engine company? As you may or may not know, in addition to the two
feuding Rohner brothers and Sabori, there are two other completely
independent groups which have been pursuing the Papp engine over the years.
That makes five groups that are known, and probably a few that are under the
radar. McKubre is known to have past ties to one of them. That may not mean
anything negative now, and it could be positive if he has jumped ship to
Rohner, but that is not what is being said.


McKubre's comments were heavily qualified. I trust McKubre, though I 
don't agree with everything he said.



No group has demonstrated a self-running Papp device to an independent
observer AFAIK, yet they all want to give the impression to investors that
it is possible, but for them only - based more on anecdote than proof.


The requirement for a "self-running Papp device" is a *demonstration* 
requirement. It is not needed for an evaluation of the *effect.* What 
is needed for that is independent replication of the operation of the 
engine, specifically, of a single pistion. That toy kit actually 
should be adequate, if it works. That doesn't demonstrate commercial 
readiness, it's only about the science. It's really the same with 
cold fusion. The demand for high output and reliability greatly 
confuses the science, which doesn't require such things. They are 
required for commerical applications.


Cold fusion is real. We know that. However, being real is not enough 
for commercial application. Period. Muon-catalyzed fusion is real, 
nobody questions that, but it will probably *never* be ready for any 
commercial applications. Pons-Fleischmann electrochemical cold fusion 
is real, it actually transmutes deuterium to helium, producing the 
right amount of energy from that, but it's a terribly messy and very 
difficult to control approach, and will probably never be 
commercially useful. NiH, on the other hand ... but with NiH (i.e., 
Rossi et al), we don't have the independent replications and the 
clear identification of the ash that we have for PdD.


Basically, folks, don't jump the gun unless you are prepared to shoot 
yourself in the foot. When we don't know, we don't know!



 And
almost any engine manufacturer will sign a license agreement to produce an
inventor's advanced engine at some future date and pay the inventor a
commission, but only when the inventor first proves that it is working. That
license means nothing when there is no upfront money changing hands.


That's right. Often these licenses are announced, but they actually 
mean almost nothing.



Randell
Mills signed up a half dozen "licensees" to produce grid power from his
invention- but Catch-22: only when he proves it is ready for prime time. No
money changed hands, and no power is being supplied to the grid many years
after he publicized these licenses. Same with Rohner - once he proves it, he
will be poised to become a wealthy man, yet he has been in this holding
position for many years.


Yes.


BTW - "Infinite Horizon" in San Jose is the name of one company which may
have raised the most money from investors IIRC - but information on them is
hard to come by. They were rumored to have a self-runner over a ago but the
lack of a further announcement makes it seem otherwise. Anyway, those 'other
two' groups not mentioned on Vortex before now, both in Silicon valley, were
perceived by insiders as having superior technology and superior
credentialed staff - to either Rohner group. For you own edification, you
should ask McKubre if he is still has a financial interest and 

RE: [Vo]:Inspiration

[MarkI-ZeroPoint]

RE: COE.

 

Start here:

http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg57015.html

 

COE begins with the phrase, "IN A CLOSED SYSTEM, ..."

For sci-drones this phrase didn't seem to stick!  All they remember is the
other half of the law.  

The second half of the law cannot be applied defensibly without the first
half.

 

http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg66744.html

 

-mark iverson

 

 

From: David Roberson [mailto:dlrober...@aol.com] 
Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2012 4:30 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Inspiration

 

I must be in the minority here with my expectation that COE must be at least
nearly correct.  Perhaps that is my hang up!

 

If devices of this nature are real then why in the world would NASA not be
using the principle to power their space craft?   I refer to the ones that
are drifting in space, not launch.

 

Dave 

-Original Message-
From: Jones Beene 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Thu, Aug 16, 2012 7:23 pm
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Inspiration

This brings up an interesting side issue. 
 
All of these devices: Brown, Hubbard, Papp, etc seemed to squeeze more
energy out of small amounts of radium (or other emitter) than should be
there. Finding out why could be an interesting pursuit.
 
If we wanted to invoke more anecdote in a similar vein, there was a guy
named Perreault here years ago who claimed to have run a couple of 100 watt
bulbs for months off of a Hubbard-like device that he fueled with a tiny
amount of radium - which had been scrapped off of an old clock dial.
Couldn't have been more than a milligram.
 
This tale has as much credence as Bob Rohner's motor being able to
self-power for an extended period - unless of course - BR has done the smart
thing - and provided a way to get a bit of radioisotope into the device.
Americium perhaps? 
 
Why not? If you were really copying Papp - why would you leave out the most
important ingredient?
 
-Original Message-
From: Terry Blanton 
 
> There is no doubt it worked, and little doubt that the reason it worked
had
> a lot to do with radium... same as the Papp engine.
 
Eric might like to examine the Paul Brown Battery also:
 
http://www.rexresearch.com/nucell/nucell.htm
 
 
T
 
 
 

Re: [Vo]:Inspiration

[Harry Veeder]

"The flame that burns twice as bright burns half as long."

Harry

On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 8:18 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:
>
> David,
>
> I must be in the minority here with my expectation that COE
> must be at least nearly correct.  Perhaps that is my hang up!
>
> Wait!  - this does not need to be related to CoE at all. If you can accept
> that radioactive half-life can be changed by many orders of magnitude, then
> that is your answer. This is the teaching of the Barker patents, which many
> have replicated, but the mainstream rejects the notion.
>
> Radium-226 has a half-life of 1,602 years. Let's say that with proper
> engineering of some unknown feedback variable, the half-life is decreased to
> that of Ra-224, a very similar isotope - which is about 3.6 days.
>
> Instantly you have an emitter which has increased its energy level by a
> factor of 150,000 or so, making one gram act like well... you get the
> picture.
>
> If devices of this nature are real then why in the world
> would NASA not be using the principle to power their space craft?   I refer
> to the ones that are drifting in space, not launch.
>
> There is some talk that NASA was looking at Paul Brown's work. There is also
> some talk that his death was not accidental. Quien sabe?
>
> Jones
>
>
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Inspiration

[David Roberson]

The first problem to be overcome is to make a working prototype to demonstrate 
to others.  Do you believe that the NASA guys are so closed minded that they 
would not even take a look at an operating device?  That would be very sad.

I am open to most ideas and inclined to speculate about how some work even if 
they seem "out of this world".  I rely on the COE as a guide.  If it appears to 
be violated I get nervous.

It was suggested that the radioactive material can have its half life greatly 
reduced under controlled circumstances.  I can work with this thought as 
possible, but strange.  If that allows the energy release to be adequate to 
supply the requirements without violation of COE, then perhaps so.

Dave


-Original Message-
From: MarkI-ZeroPoint 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Thu, Aug 16, 2012 8:31 pm
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Inspiration



“If devices of this nature are real then why in the world would NASA not be 
using the principle to power their spacecraft?”
 
Because they immediately dismiss the possibility before testing it… that’s what 
sci-drones do.  They use theory, and the long line of actual scammers and 
fraudsters to easily dismiss that which starts to cause cognitive dissonance.
  Or,
They tried to replicate (e.g., gravity shielding), but in many instances the 
rogues were not completely open, and details were not available to replicate… 
so it too died.  Perhaps it was better that way, since the human species was 
not ready for that level of knowledge… we’d have incinerated the planet!  And 
with the likes of the nut-case in Iran, we may still do so…
  
RE: NASA…
Even if one of their scientists went to an Extraordinary Science conference, 
saw a device that he could not explain, and was allowed to examine it for 
possible fraud, what are his chances of getting anyone to take it seriously 
back at NASA?  “And you saw this where?”…  If the conference isn’t populated 
with mostly PhDs, your colleagues aren’t going to take it seriously… and look 
at LENR… its attendees are nearly all PhDs and they couldn’t get any serious 
consideration after the hatchet job done back in 89  --  that effect has lasted 
for over 20 years.
 
I’ll respond to the COE question in a min, but it has been covered by the 
Collective since BC…. Before the Collective.
J
-Mark
 

From: David Roberson [mailto:dlrober...@aol.com] 
Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2012 4:30 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Inspiration

 

I must be in the minority here with my expectation that COE must be at least 
nearly correct.  Perhaps that is my hang up!

 

If devices of this nature are real then why in the world would NASA not be 
using the principle to power their space craft?   I refer to the ones that are 
drifting in space, not launch.

 

Dave 

-Original Message-
From: Jones Beene 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Thu, Aug 16, 2012 7:23 pm
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Inspiration

This brings up an interesting side issue. 
 
All of these devices: Brown, Hubbard, Papp, etc seemed to squeeze more
energy out of small amounts of radium (or other emitter) than should be
there. Finding out why could be an interesting pursuit.
 
If we wanted to invoke more anecdote in a similar vein, there was a guy
named Perreault here years ago who claimed to have run a couple of 100 watt
bulbs for months off of a Hubbard-like device that he fueled with a tiny
amount of radium - which had been scrapped off of an old clock dial.
Couldn't have been more than a milligram.
 
This tale has as much credence as Bob Rohner's motor being able to
self-power for an extended period - unless of course - BR has done the smart
thing - and provided a way to get a bit of radioisotope into the device.
Americium perhaps? 
 
Why not? If you were really copying Papp - why would you leave out the most
important ingredient?
 
-Original Message-
From: Terry Blanton 
 
> There is no doubt it worked, and little doubt that the reason it worked
had
> a lot to do with radium... same as the Papp engine.
 
Eric might like to examine the Paul Brown Battery also:
 
http://www.rexresearch.com/nucell/nucell.htm
 
 
T
 
 
 


 

Re: [Vo]:Inspiration

[Abd ul-Rahman Lomax]

At 11:49 AM 8/16/2012, Ron Wormus wrote:
One would assume that the manufacturers of these engines have done 
enough due diligence to know that it works before entering into a 
license agreement.


What manufacturers?

Assume nothing about due diligence on the part of others. Often it is 
missing. Welcome to the real world and the vast array of 
opportunities for lawyers to be fully employed.


remember Orbo? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steorn

Steorn still exists, apparently. http://www.steorn.com/

They still have an Orbo page. http://www.steorn.com/orbo/

The Orbo "Papers" link has nothing since 2008. 
http://www.steorn.com/orbo/papers/


The Orbo device seems to be totally dead.

Looking for recent news, I found

http://www.zdnet.com/steorn-behind-the-scenes-of-free-energy-dreams-4010025486/

He ends his article with "Just don't ask me to start on Andrea Rossi, 
or we'll be here all week... "


Now, I also found some references to sources from 2011.

September, 2011:

http://pesn.com/2011/09/14/9501914_Steorn_Drops_Four_Bombshell_Documents_Validating_Orbo/

It begins, "PESN has been given the opportunity by Sean McCarthy, the 
CEO of 
Steorn, to 
review four documents that provide confirmation of their overunity 
magnetic technology, named Orbo."


One of the reports, however, *is* available still on the Steorn site. 
http://www.steorn.com/orbo/papers/jm-rice-report-28april-2008.pdf


P. 20 of the PDF contains "the key outcome." There is a reference to 
p. 39 (a display of net energy with rotation with no ferrite core) 
and p. 40 ( the display with a ferrite core). The latter display 
shows what is mentioned in the text, rougly a mJ of energy 
accumulation is apparently shown.


What actually happened here? The engineer "observed" tests conducted 
by Steorn. The report is obsessively detailed with certain issues, 
and yet, in the end, though repeatibility is part of the charge, it's 
looking like this was a single rotation, showing no energy gain with 
no ferrite core and a small gain with a core. 1 mJ per rotation, if 
this accumulates, would be significant energy, perhaps. I don't see 
that the report provides data to really judge this.


The circumstantial evidence leads to this: Steorn made or planned to 
make money selling licenses or rights to investigate the effect they 
allegedly found. They made or planned to make money selling equipment 
to investigate magnetic anomalies. Those goals, done with sufficient 
legal caution, are legal. The opportunity expired. Steorn seems to 
have totally dropped this ball.


If Orbo actually worked, it would be an amazing thing, with vast 
implications for science. If it actually worked, making a "toy" that 
would demonstrate the effect would have been easy. This wasn't a 
complicated machine. The toy could have been cheap. But there would 
be a danger of making such a toy: someone might demonstrate that the 
effect wasn't real excess energy, that it was an artifact. Perhaps 
some energy can be extracted from ferrites for a time. Perhaps, 
whatever. There are lots of ways for small amounts of energy to 
appear. That's why we want to see, particularly for a small effect, 
independent replications, where lots of people can actually examine 
the nuts and bolts of it.


In addition, there is always the possibility of fraud. Orbo probably 
avoided fraud. You can put on a nagic show in public, in which you 
decieve observers. Last time I looked, it was totally legal. Just 
don't take their money under false pretenses. That's illegal.


I came across a recent discussion, where the foreman of the "jury" 
Steorn had convened to examine Orbo (not yet called that), Ian 
MacDonald, answered questions. One of the first persons to answer 
questions was our favorite writer, Mary Yugo. But to the point, here: 
the answers seem to start on


http://www.moletrap.co.uk/forum/comments.php?DiscussionID=3053&page=2 
Search for "Ian MacDonald" to find his answers in this very long 
thread. His early answers end on page 9 (see the URLs), and some more 
answers start up around page 24, but don't see anything significant. 
He stopped responding on page 27.


Is anyone still defending the Orbo? I don't know. I do remember many 
discussions on Vortex from 2009 or so where people opined that a 
company could not possibly be faking all this


There is no sign of lawsuits from disgruntled Orbo investors or 
customers. Some information developed that Orbo investors might have 
been parents of some Orbo employees. Kept Little Johnny out of 
trouble for a while


The Papp Engine people are not, of course, responsible for what 
Steorn did. I'm just pointing out that this "due dilignence" argument 
is totally useless. 

RE: [Vo]:Inspiration

[Jones Beene]

David, 

I must be in the minority here with my expectation that COE
must be at least nearly correct.  Perhaps that is my hang up!

Wait!  - this does not need to be related to CoE at all. If you can accept
that radioactive half-life can be changed by many orders of magnitude, then
that is your answer. This is the teaching of the Barker patents, which many
have replicated, but the mainstream rejects the notion.

Radium-226 has a half-life of 1,602 years. Let's say that with proper
engineering of some unknown feedback variable, the half-life is decreased to
that of Ra-224, a very similar isotope - which is about 3.6 days. 

Instantly you have an emitter which has increased its energy level by a
factor of 150,000 or so, making one gram act like well... you get the
picture.
 
If devices of this nature are real then why in the world
would NASA not be using the principle to power their space craft?   I refer
to the ones that are drifting in space, not launch.

There is some talk that NASA was looking at Paul Brown's work. There is also
some talk that his death was not accidental. Quien sabe?

Jones



 

<>

Re: [Vo]:Inspiration

[Eric Walker]

On Aug 16, 2012, at 15:03, "Jones Beene"  wrote:

> Instead, I have disparaged the sloppy interpretation of what he said by
> others, including yourself. 

I am open to the possibility that I have misrepresented his position.  Perhaps 
all he intended was to encourage Bob Rohner, and he did not intend his words to 
be taken as an endorsement of any kind, however tentative, for others to 
consider.  We are lucky in this regard, because we can ask him for 
clarification.  He will surely be willing to correct any misapprehensions that 
may have come about in this connection and put that particular question to rest.

Should his intent have been a tentative endorsement for the wider public, we 
can then proceed to reconsider the implication that this siscussion has been a 
joke and a distraction.

Eric

RE: [Vo]:Inspiration

[MarkI-ZeroPoint]

"If devices of this nature are real then why in the world would NASA not be
using the principle to power their spacecraft?"

 

Because they immediately dismiss the possibility before testing it. that's
what sci-drones do.  They use theory, and the long line of actual
scammers and fraudsters to easily dismiss that which starts to cause
cognitive dissonance.

  Or,

They tried to replicate (e.g., gravity shielding), but in many instances the
rogues were not completely open, and details were not available to
replicate. so it too died.  Perhaps it was better that way, since the human
species was not ready for that level of knowledge. we'd have incinerated the
planet!  And with the likes of the nut-case in Iran, we may still do so.

 

RE: NASA.

Even if one of their scientists went to an Extraordinary Science conference,
saw a device that he could not explain, and was allowed to examine it for
possible fraud, what are his chances of getting anyone to take it seriously
back at NASA?  "And you saw this where?".  If the conference isn't populated
with mostly PhDs, your colleagues aren't going to take it seriously. and
look at LENR. its attendees are nearly all PhDs and they couldn't get any
serious consideration after the hatchet job done back in 89  --  that effect
has lasted for over 20 years.

 

I'll respond to the COE question in a min, but it has been covered by the
Collective since BC.. Before the Collective.

J

-Mark

 

From: David Roberson [mailto:dlrober...@aol.com] 
Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2012 4:30 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Inspiration

 

I must be in the minority here with my expectation that COE must be at least
nearly correct.  Perhaps that is my hang up!

 

If devices of this nature are real then why in the world would NASA not be
using the principle to power their space craft?   I refer to the ones that
are drifting in space, not launch.

 

Dave 

-Original Message-
From: Jones Beene 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Thu, Aug 16, 2012 7:23 pm
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Inspiration

This brings up an interesting side issue. 
 
All of these devices: Brown, Hubbard, Papp, etc seemed to squeeze more
energy out of small amounts of radium (or other emitter) than should be
there. Finding out why could be an interesting pursuit.
 
If we wanted to invoke more anecdote in a similar vein, there was a guy
named Perreault here years ago who claimed to have run a couple of 100 watt
bulbs for months off of a Hubbard-like device that he fueled with a tiny
amount of radium - which had been scrapped off of an old clock dial.
Couldn't have been more than a milligram.
 
This tale has as much credence as Bob Rohner's motor being able to
self-power for an extended period - unless of course - BR has done the smart
thing - and provided a way to get a bit of radioisotope into the device.
Americium perhaps? 
 
Why not? If you were really copying Papp - why would you leave out the most
important ingredient?
 
-Original Message-
From: Terry Blanton 
 
> There is no doubt it worked, and little doubt that the reason it worked
had
> a lot to do with radium... same as the Papp engine.
 
Eric might like to examine the Paul Brown Battery also:
 
http://www.rexresearch.com/nucell/nucell.htm
 
 
T
 
 
 

Re: [Vo]:Inspiration

[Terry Blanton]

Whatcha wanna bet that PDGTG used Iridium tipped spark plugs, eh?

T

Re: [Vo]:Inspiration

[Terry Blanton]

On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 7:32 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint  wrote:

> At first it was done in USENET,

And before that, there were bulletin boards via dial up modems.
Geeze, I'm getting old.

Dave, it started with reading a book called Incident at Exeter back in
the sixties:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exeter_incident

which triggered Curiosity in a young child's mind.  And a lot of
lysergic acid probably had an effect.  :-)

Here's another that I bet Jones has forgotten:

http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg19088.html

T

Re: [Vo]:Inspiration

[David Roberson]

I must be in the minority here with my expectation that COE must be at least 
nearly correct.  Perhaps that is my hang up!

If devices of this nature are real then why in the world would NASA not be 
using the principle to power their space craft?   I refer to the ones that are 
drifting in space, not launch.

Dave 


-Original Message-
From: Jones Beene 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Thu, Aug 16, 2012 7:23 pm
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Inspiration


This brings up an interesting side issue. 

All of these devices: Brown, Hubbard, Papp, etc seemed to squeeze more
energy out of small amounts of radium (or other emitter) than should be
there. Finding out why could be an interesting pursuit.

If we wanted to invoke more anecdote in a similar vein, there was a guy
named Perreault here years ago who claimed to have run a couple of 100 watt
bulbs for months off of a Hubbard-like device that he fueled with a tiny
amount of radium - which had been scrapped off of an old clock dial.
Couldn't have been more than a milligram.

This tale has as much credence as Bob Rohner's motor being able to
self-power for an extended period - unless of course - BR has done the smart
thing - and provided a way to get a bit of radioisotope into the device.
Americium perhaps? 

Why not? If you were really copying Papp - why would you leave out the most
important ingredient?

-Original Message-
From: Terry Blanton 

> There is no doubt it worked, and little doubt that the reason it worked
had
> a lot to do with radium... same as the Papp engine.

Eric might like to examine the Paul Brown Battery also:

http://www.rexresearch.com/nucell/nucell.htm


T




 

RE: [Vo]:Inspiration

[MarkI-ZeroPoint]

Dave:

You're beginning to get a hint of the expansiveness of the Collective's
awareness. 

 

There are a number of rogue thinkers that linger in obscurity and eventually
die, but whose technology has some significant eye-witness reports.  But for
every one of them, there are tens of copy-cats who use the mythos of the
dead inventor to sell books and DVDs and 'test kits', and the worst of the
bunch that scam a lot of money from the foolish or too-trusting folks.  

 

This forum's purpose is to discuss these kinds of 'rogue finds'. the fringe
element of sci/tech.  At first it was done in USENET, in various interest
groups, like sci.physics and sci.physics.fusion, but those forums were
dominated by the dogmatically skeptical drones pumped out by places like Cal
Tech and MIT.  ;-)   Vorts, as a whole, are much more tolerant of differing
viewpoints; but then, an occasional sci-drone comes to play too.

 

-mark iverson

 

From: David Roberson [mailto:dlrober...@aol.com] 
Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2012 4:12 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Inspiration

 

Terry, where do you find these gems?  I bet that no one has delivered a
working model to be reproduced.  How did a patent get issued for something
like this?

 

If this device works, the definition of the energy of an emitted alpha
particle would need to be redefined.

 

Dave

-Original Message-
From: Terry Blanton 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Thu, Aug 16, 2012 5:37 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Inspiration

On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 4:15 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:
 
> There is no doubt it worked, and little doubt that the reason it worked
had
> a lot to do with radium... same as the Papp engine.
 
Eric might like to examine the Paul Brown Battery also:
 
http://www.rexresearch.com/nucell/nucell.htm
 
T
 

RE: [Vo]:Inspiration

[Jones Beene]

This brings up an interesting side issue. 

All of these devices: Brown, Hubbard, Papp, etc seemed to squeeze more
energy out of small amounts of radium (or other emitter) than should be
there. Finding out why could be an interesting pursuit.

If we wanted to invoke more anecdote in a similar vein, there was a guy
named Perreault here years ago who claimed to have run a couple of 100 watt
bulbs for months off of a Hubbard-like device that he fueled with a tiny
amount of radium - which had been scrapped off of an old clock dial.
Couldn't have been more than a milligram.

This tale has as much credence as Bob Rohner's motor being able to
self-power for an extended period - unless of course - BR has done the smart
thing - and provided a way to get a bit of radioisotope into the device.
Americium perhaps? 

Why not? If you were really copying Papp - why would you leave out the most
important ingredient?

-Original Message-
From: Terry Blanton 

> There is no doubt it worked, and little doubt that the reason it worked
had
> a lot to do with radium... same as the Papp engine.

Eric might like to examine the Paul Brown Battery also:

http://www.rexresearch.com/nucell/nucell.htm


T

Re: [Vo]:Inspiration

[David Roberson]

Terry, where do you find these gems?  I bet that no one has delivered a working 
model to be reproduced.  How did a patent get issued for something like this?

If this device works, the definition of the energy of an emitted alpha particle 
would need to be redefined.

Dave


-Original Message-
From: Terry Blanton 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Thu, Aug 16, 2012 5:37 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Inspiration


On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 4:15 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:

> There is no doubt it worked, and little doubt that the reason it worked had
> a lot to do with radium... same as the Papp engine.

Eric might like to examine the Paul Brown Battery also:

http://www.rexresearch.com/nucell/nucell.htm

T


 

Re: [Vo]:Inspiration

[Abd ul-Rahman Lomax]

At 11:36 AM 8/16/2012, Eric Walker wrote:

On Aug 16, 2012, at 10:38, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax  wrote:

> Yet we cannot rely upon this reality until there is substantially 
more available. McKubre would be, with his comment, encouraging Bob 
Rohner to continue his work.


Agreed.  You make many valid points, especially concerning 
speculation about any mechanism.


The point I'm directly addressing is one suggested earlier by Jones, 
that one would be naive and gullible to take interest in the newer 
Papp models. To this I would say, to the contrary -- all one needs 
is prima facie evidence that there might be something going on, 
which is what we get with Michael McKubre's endorsement.


To be clear, I don't think that anyone is naive and gullible for 
taking "an interest in the newer Papp models." Interest, though, is 
cheap. One would be naive and gullible, given what I've seen so far, 
to send off a big check to any of these people.


Buying a kit, that depends. I'd say that anyone who buys a kit who is 
not prepared to find that the thing doesn't work is naive and 
gullible. At this point, without confirmation, I'd think of a group 
of people cooperating to get and build a kit, to lower individual 
costs and risk. There is another approach, as well.


The kit offered for $350 is just the electronics, i.e., the circuit 
board, coils, and electrodes (apparently modified spark plugs). Also 
needed: the fuel (a specified mixture of noble gases, though whether 
the percentages specified are "by weight" or "by volume" is not 
specified. That question can probably be easily answered. Also 
needed: the piston and spring and other hardware.


So someone could make some money, my guess, by offering these things. 
As part of this, the person might buy a kit. To make money on this, 
it is not necessary that the Papp engine actually works, but, 
presumably, an ethical businessperson would not claim what they were 
not prepared to back up.


"Designed to be used with Such-and-such a kit from Such-and-such a 
company. No representations are made that an engine built with these 
components will actually function. We guarantee only that the 
materials we supply are according to these specifications [taken from 
the kit instructions or referring to them]>"


The person would immediately offer the other necessary things for 
sale, it is not necessary that the kit actually work. What would be 
necessary would be that the gas kit be exactly those percentages (not 
necessarily easy, but it's a matter of care and possibly some 
equipment), and that the piston kit duplicate the specifications in 
the available electronics kit.


This person would also, then, actually assemble one of these, or 
encourage someone else to assemble it, being in a position to supply 
everything. What's done with that information is down the road. Hint, 
though. I would not recommend buying the gases in huge quantities, 
counting on a massive flow of orders. Just go for something minimal 
that will work.


Now, a fly in this ointment: the kit documents specify the gas 
percentages in tenths of a percent. There are no tolerances 
specified. Getting *exactly* those percentages is actually 
impossible. It is possible that one could make gas with actual 
percentages that will round off as shown. The way that the gas 
percentages are specified shows lack of sophistication. Or a desire 
to set up possible failure.


"Hmmm, it doesn't work for you. It worked for us. Did you have 
exactly X.Y% of this gas? No? Next time, follow instructions!"


In the Galileo project, an attempted SPAWAR codep charged particle 
radiation replication, the necessary chemicals for the electrolyte 
were given with tolerances. That's what I'd expect in a sophisticated 
set of instructions. 

Re: [Vo]:Inspiration

[Terry Blanton]

On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 4:15 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:

> There is no doubt it worked, and little doubt that the reason it worked had
> a lot to do with radium... same as the Papp engine.

Eric might like to examine the Paul Brown Battery also:

http://www.rexresearch.com/nucell/nucell.htm

T

RE: [Vo]:Inspiration

[Jones Beene]

This is a misrepresentation, Eric.

I have not disparaged McKubre's connection to Papp in any way - but merely
provided a framework to better understand the recent history of this device
and his past involvement with some of the other players, which he would
never deny. 

Instead, I have disparaged the sloppy interpretation of what he said by
others, including yourself. 

Note that MM never says that he has witnessed this machine in self-powered
mode. He says only that so-and-so told him one thing, which was corroborated
by someone else, which was further corroborated by another third party. This
is all circumstantial anecdote. You did not carefully listen to what he
said. I doubt if he would deny his connection to Klostermann and in any
event, it is not "disparagement".

Instead, you jump to the conclusion that this string of linked anecdotes
constitutes some kind of real data or real endorsement, instead of merely
being 'encouragement' to Rohner. No one has a problem with an expert like
MM, with a long history in the field, encouraging a friend. 

It is someone else's misleading interpretation of that as a real factual
"endorsement" of the present validity of the gain in the technology, to a
wider audience (as opposed to its potential "promise") which is the problem.

... 'nuf said.

Jones

-Original Message-
From: Eric Walker 
 
>  to be frank - this whole episode is really becoming a joke and a
> distraction to new technology that does work.

To be frank, I think you've gotten yourself in the difficult position of
disparaging McKubre's connection to all of this.  His role as a capable LENR
researcher has been invaluable in its maintaining a degree of
respectability.  He has now endorsed Bob Rohner's device, however
tentatively.  You're calling this endorsement the basis of a joke and a
distraction.  I personally would not want to find myself under pressure to
defend this position.
 

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Inspiration

[Eric Walker]

On Aug 16, 2012, at 14:15, "Jones Beene"  wrote:

> 
>  to be frank - this whole episode is really becoming a joke and a
> distraction to new technology that does work.

To be frank, I think you've gotten yourself in the difficult position of 
disparaging McKubre's connection to all of this.  His role as a capable LENR 
researcher has been invaluable in its maintaining a degree of respectability.  
He has now endorsed Bob Rohner's device, however tentatively.  You're calling 
this endorsement the basis of a joke and a distraction.  I personally would not 
want to find myself under pressure to defend this position.
> 

Eric

RE: [Vo]:Inspiration

[Jones Beene]

From: Axil Axil
 
*   First, since Papp technology is open source, and intellectual
property is not an issue, the lawyers are not going to get very far.

What makes you think it is open source? In fact, this appears not to be the
case. There are several patents in effect, even if Papp's original IP has
expired. Note that his original IP is entitled: "Method & Means of
Converting Atomic Energy Into Utilizable Kinetic Energy". Papp used radium,
notably.

*   Next IMHO, Bob Rohner is not capable of getting the Papp engine to
commercialization.

That much is true.

*   Next, the Papp engine should be rightly feared by LENR advocates
because it will make most of the known LENR technology obsolete. In this
state of affairs, the LENR community will tend to disparage it; it's human
nature.

Absurd ! This is completely unscientific bogosity. Nobody "fears" it because
there is nothing to fear. There is no data in the last 20 years that shows
it has worked since the time of Papp. I agree that it did work then and that
the reason is known. Your Nobel gas cluster idea was shot down in flames -
and to be frank - this whole episode is really becoming a joke and a
distraction to new technology that does work.

*   Finally, the engine that Feynman saw was self-powered, that is why
it ran away.
 
Even if that is partly true historically, the engine has not been duplicated
since Papp's time and for a very good reason. Papp used radioactive
isotopes, most radium - which are not obtainable now, and consequently his
version of the engine will never be duplicated in the way Papp was able to
do it. 

*   Papp was intent on showing a perpetual motion device and he cross
wired the cylinders so they each fed power the other. This feedback setup
resulted in an accelerating positive feedback loop and a man was killed by
it. 

Since nuclear isotopes were Papp's power source, this disqualifies
"perpetual motion". The feedback scenario is a guess without any underlying
justification, other than that it relates to Hubbard. All that we know for
fact is that Feynman unplugged it while running, it exploded and a bystander
was killed, Cal Tech was sued and paid the estate of the victim a large sum.
Following that tragedy, the engine was never shown independently to run
again. It is possible the victim ingested radioactive materials but that was
covered up in the settlement agreement.

It is ludicrous to think that anyone in LENR "fears" the modern versions of
Papp technology, because there is nothing to it without the radium and other
isotopes. Papp invented a new kind of nuclear reactor - END OF STORY.

Except for this: If you want to investigate a better device than Papp, which
also used the same or similar radioactive isotopes for large apparent gain
being dependent on a proper coil - and probably very similar to Papp -
investigate the Hubbard coil:

http://www.rexresearch.com/hubbard/hubbard.htm

There is no doubt it worked, and little doubt that the reason it worked had
a lot to do with radium... same as the Papp engine. The Hubbard coil has the
distinct advantage of being solid state and needing no noble gasses.

There is a glaring cross-connection of Hubbard's design to the original Papp
engine via the coil. Do you think this is coincidental? Note also the
details that are seen in the foundation of Josef Papp's work: US Patent #
3,670,494; "Method & Means of Converting Atomic Energy Into Utilizable
Kinetic Energy" and this is clearly based on converting radium and similar
isotopes into electrical current. Radium was once commonly available, but no
longer. 


<>

Re: [Vo]:Inspiration

[Eric Walker]

On Aug 16, 2012, at 11:38, "Jones Beene"  wrote:

> For you own edification, you
> should ask McKubre if he is still has a financial interest and is on the
> Board of one of them - if you want to claim his comments constitute and
> independent endorsement of the technology.

I don't want to claim that McKubre's endorsement is a ringing one, or even that 
he has spoken more than polite words.  I claim only that his going out of his 
way to go to Tesla and appear on stage and say those things was an endorsement. 
 I believe we agree on this point.

I certainly would not recommend any significant investments be made in this 
technology; I would even hesitate to purchase the demonstration kit.

I understand that you are not accusing McKubre of anything more than possibly 
having a financial conflict of interest.  Can you provide further information 
in this regard that will be material to a consideration of his endorsement?

There is no doubt that many details connected to Papp and the recent 
replicators are sketchy. We have seen a similar set of considerations arise in 
connection with some of the attempts at LENR commercialization.  We are also 
now seeing possible evidence that, those concerns aside, there could actually 
be something to the claims made in connection with those attempts.  What I am 
saying, and please indicate if you disagree, is that the book does not appear 
to be closed on Papp and the replicators, and that more work will be needed if 
they are to be considered to have been debunked.  In the absence of such a 
final conclusion, I see the possibility of an interesting phenomenon to be 
investigated.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Inspiration

[Axil Axil]

First, since Papp technology is open source, and intellectual property  is
not an issue, the lawyers are not going to get very far.

Next IMHO, Bob Rohner is not capable of getting the Papp engine to
commercialization.

Next, the Papp engine should be rightly feared by LENR advocates because it
will make most of the known LENR technology obsolete. In this state of
affairs, the LENR community will tend to disparage it; its human nature.

Finally, the engine that Feynman saw was self-powered, that is why it ran
away. Papp was intent on showing a perpetual motion device and he cross
wired the cylinders so they each fed power the other. This feedback setup
resulted in an accelerating positive feedback loop and a man was killed by
it.


Cheers:   Axil

On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 1:38 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:

> Eric,
>
> I hope that you would not call that video a ringing endorsement. How many
> "ifs" does one need to overlook before a polite comment becomes a bona fide
> endorsement? There is a large gap between "taking an interest" in a
> technology and investing your life's savings in it - or even in promoting
> it
> without doing due diligence. I will repeat my comment so that there is no
> equivocation: Only a gullible person would invest in Bob Rohner's company
> at
> this point in time, since there is no proof of concept, and really no proof
> of anything - McKubre notwithstanding.
>
> Can one be an independent endorser if one has a financial interest in the
> outcome - such as sitting on the Board, or holding stock in another
> Papp-engine company? As you may or may not know, in addition to the two
> feuding Rohner brothers and Sabori, there are two other completely
> independent groups which have been pursuing the Papp engine over the years.
> That makes five groups that are known, and probably a few that are under
> the
> radar. McKubre is known to have past ties to one of them. That may not mean
> anything negative now, and it could be positive if he has jumped ship to
> Rohner, but that is not what is being said.
>
> No group has demonstrated a self-running Papp device to an independent
> observer AFAIK, yet they all want to give the impression to investors that
> it is possible, but for them only - based more on anecdote than proof. And
> almost any engine manufacturer will sign a license agreement to produce an
> inventor's advanced engine at some future date and pay the inventor a
> commission, but only when the inventor first proves that it is working.
> That
> license means nothing when there is no upfront money changing hands.
> Randell
> Mills signed up a half dozen "licensees" to produce grid power from his
> invention- but Catch-22: only when he proves it is ready for prime time. No
> money changed hands, and no power is being supplied to the grid many years
> after he publicized these licenses. Same with Rohner - once he proves it,
> he
> will be poised to become a wealthy man, yet he has been in this holding
> position for many years.
>
> BTW - "Infinite Horizon" in San Jose is the name of one company which may
> have raised the most money from investors IIRC - but information on them is
> hard to come by. They were rumored to have a self-runner over a ago but the
> lack of a further announcement makes it seem otherwise. Anyway, those
> 'other
> two' groups not mentioned on Vortex before now, both in Silicon valley,
> were
> perceived by insiders as having superior technology and superior
> credentialed staff - to either Rohner group. For you own edification, you
> should ask McKubre if he is still has a financial interest and is on the
> Board of one of them - if you want to claim his comments constitute and
> independent endorsement of the technology.
>
> All-in-all ... if anyone succeeds, it will likely be a gold-mine for
> attorneys - not investors - since all parties claim to have the one true
> grail.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Eric Walker
> Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
>
> > Yet we cannot rely upon this reality until there is substantially more
> available. McKubre would be, with his comment, encouraging Bob Rohner to
> continue his work.
>
> Agreed.  You make many valid points, especially concerning speculation
> about
> any mechanism.
>
> The point I'm directly addressing is one suggested earlier by Jones, that
> one would be naive and gullible to take interest in the newer Papp models.
> To this I would say, to the contrary -- all one needs is prima facie
> evidence that there might be something going on, which is what we get with
> Michael McKubre's endorsement.
>
> Eric
>
>
>

RE: [Vo]:Inspiration

[Jones Beene]

Eric,

I hope that you would not call that video a ringing endorsement. How many
"ifs" does one need to overlook before a polite comment becomes a bona fide
endorsement? There is a large gap between "taking an interest" in a
technology and investing your life's savings in it - or even in promoting it
without doing due diligence. I will repeat my comment so that there is no
equivocation: Only a gullible person would invest in Bob Rohner's company at
this point in time, since there is no proof of concept, and really no proof
of anything - McKubre notwithstanding. 

Can one be an independent endorser if one has a financial interest in the
outcome - such as sitting on the Board, or holding stock in another
Papp-engine company? As you may or may not know, in addition to the two
feuding Rohner brothers and Sabori, there are two other completely
independent groups which have been pursuing the Papp engine over the years.
That makes five groups that are known, and probably a few that are under the
radar. McKubre is known to have past ties to one of them. That may not mean
anything negative now, and it could be positive if he has jumped ship to
Rohner, but that is not what is being said.

No group has demonstrated a self-running Papp device to an independent
observer AFAIK, yet they all want to give the impression to investors that
it is possible, but for them only - based more on anecdote than proof. And
almost any engine manufacturer will sign a license agreement to produce an
inventor's advanced engine at some future date and pay the inventor a
commission, but only when the inventor first proves that it is working. That
license means nothing when there is no upfront money changing hands. Randell
Mills signed up a half dozen "licensees" to produce grid power from his
invention- but Catch-22: only when he proves it is ready for prime time. No
money changed hands, and no power is being supplied to the grid many years
after he publicized these licenses. Same with Rohner - once he proves it, he
will be poised to become a wealthy man, yet he has been in this holding
position for many years.

BTW - "Infinite Horizon" in San Jose is the name of one company which may
have raised the most money from investors IIRC - but information on them is
hard to come by. They were rumored to have a self-runner over a ago but the
lack of a further announcement makes it seem otherwise. Anyway, those 'other
two' groups not mentioned on Vortex before now, both in Silicon valley, were
perceived by insiders as having superior technology and superior
credentialed staff - to either Rohner group. For you own edification, you
should ask McKubre if he is still has a financial interest and is on the
Board of one of them - if you want to claim his comments constitute and
independent endorsement of the technology.

All-in-all ... if anyone succeeds, it will likely be a gold-mine for
attorneys - not investors - since all parties claim to have the one true
grail.

-Original Message-
From: Eric Walker 
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:

> Yet we cannot rely upon this reality until there is substantially more
available. McKubre would be, with his comment, encouraging Bob Rohner to
continue his work.

Agreed.  You make many valid points, especially concerning speculation about
any mechanism.

The point I'm directly addressing is one suggested earlier by Jones, that
one would be naive and gullible to take interest in the newer Papp models.
To this I would say, to the contrary -- all one needs is prima facie
evidence that there might be something going on, which is what we get with
Michael McKubre's endorsement.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Inspiration

[Ron Wormus]

One would assume that the manufacturers of these engines have done enough 
due diligence to know that it works before entering into a license 
agreement.

Ron

--On Thursday, August 16, 2012 10:36 AM -0600 Eric Walker 
 wrote:



On Aug 16, 2012, at 10:38, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax 
wrote:


Yet we cannot rely upon this reality until there is substantially more
available. McKubre would be, with his comment, encouraging Bob Rohner
to continue his work.


Agreed.  You make many valid points, especially concerning speculation
about any mechanism.

The point I'm directly addressing is one suggested earlier by Jones,
that one would be naive and gullible to take interest in the newer Papp
models. To this I would say, to the contrary -- all one needs is prima
facie evidence that there might be something going on, which is what we
get with Michael McKubre's endorsement.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Inspiration

[Eric Walker]

On Aug 16, 2012, at 10:38, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax  wrote:

> Yet we cannot rely upon this reality until there is substantially more 
> available. McKubre would be, with his comment, encouraging Bob Rohner to 
> continue his work.

Agreed.  You make many valid points, especially concerning speculation about 
any mechanism.

The point I'm directly addressing is one suggested earlier by Jones, that one 
would be naive and gullible to take interest in the newer Papp models. To this 
I would say, to the contrary -- all one needs is prima facie evidence that 
there might be something going on, which is what we get with Michael McKubre's 
endorsement.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Inspiration

[Abd ul-Rahman Lomax]

At 12:36 AM 8/16/2012, Eric Walker wrote:

Le Aug 15, 2012 Ã  11:15 PM, "MarkI-ZeroPoint" 
 a écrit :


> MuKubre's body language was not good; I think 
it reveals some level of reservations about being there.

> -mark

Understood.  He may have had reservations about 
endorsing what he saw, because there might have 
been some error in the measurements, for 
example.  But knowing what I know now of the 
history of the Papp engine and of the later 
developments, I would have been nervous simply 
being up there at all, regardless of anything I thought I saw in a demo.


Okay, I finally found and watched the McKubre 
comments. Fairly typical for McKubre. I don't see 
the body language "message" Mark is mentioning. 
McKubre knows that the Papp engine is 
"impossible." He says so. He also knows that 
sometimes what we think of as impossible is real.


His experience with cold fusion, where 
"impossible" was the main reason for rejection in 
1989-1990, and where he was one of the 
independent replicators who supposedly don't 
exist (having been retained by the Electric Power 
Research Institute to investigate), has led him 
to be, perhaps, more credulous than your average energy expert.


He's clearly relying on representations, and 
Rohner was reading an email from McKubre saying 
things that McKubre explicitly said in the email, 
he didn't want revealed publicly. I've seen other 
such communications from researchers. They 
respond to an inventor assuming that the inventor 
is telling them the truth, and has actually seen 
what is being reported. It's like an attorney 
with a client: the attorney, in advising the 
client, will assume that the client is telling 
them the truth. That is not a testimony that the client is telling the truth!


McKubre refers to an independent test that was 
done. Without specific information about that 
test, it's not possible to understand the significance.


What McKubre does with his comment is increase 
the credibility of Rohner, and there is nothing 
wrong with that, per se. The Papp Engine has a 
lot of history that makes the claim of reality of 
the Papp Effect seem *possibly* true.


Yet we cannot rely upon this reality until there 
is substantially more available. McKubre would 
be, with his comment, encouraging Bob Rohner to 
continue his work. And he would be encouraging 
independent testing. 10:1 COP is impressive. 
There are *demonstrations* where the machine ran 
with no input, unless there was fraud.


There *was* a kind of fraud involved with the 
Papp Engine. Papp took people's money and 
promised them returns. The implied assumption 
there would be that he would spend their money in 
ways that would produce a return for them. He 
didn't. He spent much of the money on himself. 
And he held on to his secrets and died with them, 
apparently. Others may have later figured out 
what was necessary (specifically, the formula for the fuel). Or not.


I disagree with McKubre in his comments about 
"nuclear" as being necessary. The high energy 
density and long operation without refueling or 
exhaust does indicate nuclear energy, but, bottom 
line, the energy source is unknown, and McKubre 
knows that. The assumption of "nuclear" with cold 
fusion, before the specific nuclear evidence was 
known, caused a lot of damage. If the Papp Engine 
is fueled by a nuclear transmutation, we don't 
know what the fuel and ash are. With the long 
operation, it should be easy to find, if this is 
a nuclear reaction. We have no information on this.


It seems so many people want to give a name to 
the cause of something, before we know enough. 
They vary in that. Some give it the name of 
"unidentified error or fraud." Different strokes for different folks.


From the energy density in PdD cold fusion, Pons 
and Fleischmann called it an "unknown nuclear 
reaction." Fleischmann later wrote that he wished 
he'd never mentioned "nuclear," but had only 
published in some obscure electrochemistry 
journal about high levels of anomalous heat, 
observed under such and such conditions. Let some 
physicist proclaim that it was nuclear, after 
finding specific evidence for that.


(To be fair, Pons and Fleischmann thought they 
had observed neutrons. Not enough to explain the 
heat, not nearly enough. That was artifact, and 
that it was quickly shown to be artifact was one 
of the factors that demolished the reputation of cold fusion in 1989-1990.)


It all boils down to a pretense that we know something when we don't.

"Unknown nuclear reaction," without proof of a 
nuclear reaction product, is really just "unknown 
cause." It might not be "nuclear." It might be 
ZPE, it might be gremlins, it might be mass 
hysteria, it might be hypnosis, it might be  
whatever we make up that makes us feel safer 
against the unknown. But the unknown isn't a bad thing 

Re: [Vo]:Inspiration

[Kelley Trezise]

There is a path to clean nuclear called aneutronic fusion: 
http://deadstickarizona-zedshort.blogspot.com/2012/06/alternate-path-to-cleaner-brighter.html

Re: [Vo]:Inspiration

[LORENHEYER]

I'm inclined to think that some of the so-called green energies, especially 
solar, will be worth the effort as the R&D process continues to produce 
more efficient materials and/or their specific properties for extracting and/or 
converting heat into energy, and will play a vital part in Clean Nuclear 
fission & fusion technologies.  

  IOW's, the process going on in the sun that generates the immense 
amount of heat can be reproduced in a altogether vastly improved highly 
contained System that will make Clean Nuclear fission and/or fusion 
possible 
No?

   <
   And so, I would say that a good working system all 
depends on the vastly improved efficiency of vastly improved materials, and 
the only way to develope these materials might require an all new approach in 
understanding how energy will be used.  
 << Clean Nuclear 
fission and fusion don't appear to exist anytime soon.
 
 Solar, wind and bio suck as a source of energy and is an economic step
 backwards >>

RE: [Vo]:Inspiration

[MarkI-ZeroPoint]

Morning Eric,
What doesn't make sense is that McKubre said himself that he has known Rohner 
for, IIRC, 4 or 5 years.  You'd think in that time he would have done a little 
digging about the Papp saga, and would be aware of all that we are... with the 
internet, it doesn't take long to find opposing viewpoints.

McKubre is used to conferences with nothing but PhDs.  For the most part, the 
'Extraordinary Technology' type conferences are full of marginally competent 
people who make a living selling books and DVDs about weird sh*t... there are a 
few legit presenters, but not many.  That's why I stopped going 20 years ago... 
during the registration period, the organizers would boast about how so-n-so 
was going to have a 'working' device this time, so you bought your ticket, and 
when you get there and go to so-n-so's booth, guess what?  He was testing it 
the day before and burned something out, or something broke, so sorry, but no 
'working' demo this year.  I've been thru that several times... and just a year 
or two ago the same thing happened with a conference in Utah.  A few days 
before the conference, one of the 'key' presenters was unable to attend!  By 
then, you'd already bought the ticket... some things never change.

-Mark

-Original Message-
From: Eric Walker [mailto:eric.wal...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2012 10:37 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Inspiration


Le Aug 15, 2012 à 11:15 PM, "MarkI-ZeroPoint"  a écrit :

> MuKubre's body language was not good; I think it reveals some level of 
> reservations about being there.
> -mark

Understood.  He may have had reservations about endorsing what he saw, because 
there might have been some error in the measurements, for example.  But knowing 
what I know now of the history of the Papp engine and of the later 
developments, I would have been nervous simply being up there at all, 
regardless of anything I thought I saw in a demo.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Inspiration

[Eric Walker]

Le Aug 15, 2012 à 11:15 PM, "MarkI-ZeroPoint"  a écrit :

> MuKubre's body language was not good; I think it reveals some level of 
> reservations about being there.
> -mark

Understood.  He may have had reservations about endorsing what he saw, because 
there might have been some error in the measurements, for example.  But knowing 
what I know now of the history of the Papp engine and of the later 
developments, I would have been nervous simply being up there at all, 
regardless of anything I thought I saw in a demo.

Eric

RE: [Vo]:Inspiration

[MarkI-ZeroPoint]

MuKubre's body language was not good; I think it reveals some level of 
reservations about being there.
-mark

-Original Message-
From: Eric Walker [mailto:eric.wal...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2012 10:07 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Inspiration

Le Aug 15, 2012 à 10:02 AM, "Jones Beene"  a écrit :

> The more egregious gullibility - in evidence by many others as well, 
> is falling for the most recent iteration of the Rohner/Papp shtick.

I take it you weren't impressed with Michael McKubre's eyewitness endorsement?

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Inspiration

[Eric Walker]

Le Aug 15, 2012 à 10:02 AM, "Jones Beene"  a écrit :

> The more egregious gullibility - in evidence by many others as well, is
> falling for the most recent iteration of the Rohner/Papp shtick. 

I take it you weren't impressed with Michael McKubre's eyewitness endorsement?

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Inspiration

[mixent]

In reply to  P.J van Noorden's message of Wed, 15 Aug 2012 14:18:48 +0200:
Hi,
[snip]
>Hello,
>
>From Randell Mills I understood that only H can be a catalyst because the 
>atom has to be neutral. He+ is not neutral, so it is difficult / impossible 
>to collaps.
>
>Peter van Noorden

Atomic H may be neutral, but H[1/2] carries an additional "pseudo charge" of +1
(according to Mills theory) giving it a total charge of +2. IMO this makes
H[1/2] electrically indistinguishable from He+ from the point of view of the
electron. Therefore, since H[1/2] can undergo further shrinkage, I fail to see
why He+ could not also do so.

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:Inspiration

[Harry Veeder]

Note...how much work is required de-ionize H+?


Harry

On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 11:05 AM, Chemical Engineer  wrote:
> Ok i stand corrected
>
> On Wednesday, August 15, 2012, Jones Beene wrote:
>>
>> Ah, no … you better recheck
>>
>>
>>
>> From: Chemical Engineer
>>
>>
>>
>> Atomic hydrogen carries an ionization charge last time I checked
>>
>>
>>

Re: [Vo]:Inspiration

[Chemical Engineer]

I am an indistrial engineer and have no reputation in the cmns field.  I do
not care one way or the other.  I am connecting dots and visualizing.  I do
read alot of nerdy quantum mechanics stuff and my theory makes sense at
least to me.  The gremlins and chameleons are just for fun and
visualization.

I do have a few beliefs:

23 years is way too long to come up with a good theory and engineered
product if it is real.

Meanwhile we are all aiding in throwing the thermodynamic balance of our
planet way out of whack with all the pollutants we are pumping into the
atmosphere. I have kids and i would like to leave them a planet that was
better then the way we got.  So far I would say NOT

Clean Nuclear fission and fusion don't appear to exist anytime soon.

Solar, wind and bio suck as a source of energy and is an economic step
backwards

On Wednesday, August 15, 2012, Chemical Engineer wrote:

> OK I will be serious.  I AM SERIOUS - we are birthing maintaining and
> evaporating micro black holes.  Not really a big deal because nature does
> it all the time.  I just did not realize until recently and I think they
> are everywhere.
>
> Sorry, lack of sleep.  Brian Ahern on CMNS did not like my humor either
> but did not openly disagree (yet) with my theory.
>
> I am not sure if the guys are collapsing H2, H+, or H- in those voids or
> the crosshair of that Papp engine (which I believe is Helium Ions).  I
> believe my theory might work for all three and just about any matter given
> enough oomph.  A singularity can carry a charge just like any other atomic
> structure.  Based upon LHC collision studies, the higher the kinetic energy
> at time of collision the greater the chance of collapse.  Throw in quantum
> gravity aiding you along with the hoop effect of a void or possible
> magnetic field squashing you at the same time and poof! singularity.  I am
> also thinking aligning all off those ions with the coil in the Papp engine
> makes them sometimes bounce off each other like pool balls with an additive
> effect on velocity & energy.
>
> Any upset in their thermodynamic balance or location in space should give
> them a fit and trigger the gremlin.
>
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 11:39 AM, Terry Blanton 
> 
> > wrote:
>
>> I can't tell when CE is serious anymore.
>>
>> T
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 10:52 AM, Jones Beene 
>> >
>> wrote:
>> > Ah, no … you better recheck
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > From: Chemical Engineer
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Atomic hydrogen carries an ionization charge last time I checked
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>

RE: [Vo]:Inspiration

[Jones Beene]

Well, 'Gremlins' will do that to one's reputation, unless your name is
Spielberg...

The more egregious gullibility - in evidence by many others as well, is
falling for the most recent iteration of the Rohner/Papp shtick. 

PT Barnum surely underestimated his famous birthrate figure.


-Original Message-
From: Terry Blanton 

I can't tell when CE is serious anymore.

T

Jones Beene wrote:

> Ah, no ... you better recheck

> From: Chemical Engineer

> Atomic hydrogen carries an ionization charge last time I checked

<>

Re: [Vo]:Inspiration

[Chemical Engineer]

OK I will be serious.  I AM SERIOUS - we are birthing maintaining and
evaporating micro black holes.  Not really a big deal because nature does
it all the time.  I just did not realize until recently and I think they
are everywhere.

Sorry, lack of sleep.  Brian Ahern on CMNS did not like my humor either but
did not openly disagree (yet) with my theory.

I am not sure if the guys are collapsing H2, H+, or H- in those voids or
the crosshair of that Papp engine (which I believe is Helium Ions).  I
believe my theory might work for all three and just about any matter given
enough oomph.  A singularity can carry a charge just like any other atomic
structure.  Based upon LHC collision studies, the higher the kinetic energy
at time of collision the greater the chance of collapse.  Throw in quantum
gravity aiding you along with the hoop effect of a void or possible
magnetic field squashing you at the same time and poof! singularity.  I am
also thinking aligning all off those ions with the coil in the Papp engine
makes them sometimes bounce off each other like pool balls with an additive
effect on velocity & energy.

Any upset in their thermodynamic balance or location in space should give
them a fit and trigger the gremlin.



On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 11:39 AM, Terry Blanton  wrote:

> I can't tell when CE is serious anymore.
>
> T
>
> On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 10:52 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:
> > Ah, no … you better recheck
> >
> >
> >
> > From: Chemical Engineer
> >
> >
> >
> > Atomic hydrogen carries an ionization charge last time I checked
> >
> >
> >
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Inspiration

[Terry Blanton]

I can't tell when CE is serious anymore.

T

On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 10:52 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:
> Ah, no … you better recheck
>
>
>
> From: Chemical Engineer
>
>
>
> Atomic hydrogen carries an ionization charge last time I checked
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Inspiration

[Chemical Engineer]

Ok i stand corrected

On Wednesday, August 15, 2012, Jones Beene wrote:

>  Ah, no … you better recheck 
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* Chemical Engineer 
>
> ** **
>
> Atomic hydrogen carries an ionization charge last time I checked
>
>
> 
>
> ** **
>

RE: [Vo]:Inspiration

[Jones Beene]

Ah, no . you better recheck 

 

From: Chemical Engineer 

 

Atomic hydrogen carries an ionization charge last time I checked




 

Re: [Vo]:Inspiration

[Chemical Engineer]

Atomic hydrogen carries an ionization charge last time I checked

On Wednesday, August 15, 2012, P.J van Noorden wrote:

> Hello,
>
> From Randell Mills I understood that only H can be a catalyst because the
> atom has to be neutral. He+ is not neutral, so it is difficult / impossible
> to collaps.
>
> Peter van Noorden
>
>
>
> - Original Message - From: 
> To: 
> Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2012 7:18 AM
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Inspiration
>
>
> In reply to  David Roberson's message of Wed, 15 Aug 2012 00:31:31 -0400
> (EDT):
> Hi,
> [snip]
>
>>
>> I was wondering about collapsed helium.  Does the Mills theory support
>> the concept?
>>
>
> My memory on Mills' position is vague. However I fail to see that there is
> any
> great functional difference between H and He+ (apart from the double
> charge on
> the nucleus), so I think it should be possible.
> [snip]
> Regards,
>
> Robin van Spaandonk
>
> http://rvanspaa.freehostia.**com/project.html<http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Inspiration

[P.J van Noorden]

Hello,

From Randell Mills I understood that only H can be a catalyst because the 
atom has to be neutral. He+ is not neutral, so it is difficult / impossible 
to collaps.


Peter van Noorden



- Original Message - 
From: 

To: 
Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2012 7:18 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Inspiration


In reply to  David Roberson's message of Wed, 15 Aug 2012 00:31:31 -0400 
(EDT):

Hi,
[snip]


I was wondering about collapsed helium.  Does the Mills theory support the 
concept?


My memory on Mills' position is vague. However I fail to see that there is 
any
great functional difference between H and He+ (apart from the double charge 
on

the nucleus), so I think it should be possible.
[snip]
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:Inspiration

[mixent]

In reply to  David Roberson's message of Wed, 15 Aug 2012 00:31:31 -0400 (EDT):
Hi,
[snip]
>
>I was wondering about collapsed helium.  Does the Mills theory support the 
>concept?

My memory on Mills' position is vague. However I fail to see that there is any
great functional difference between H and He+ (apart from the double charge on
the nucleus), so I think it should be possible. 
[snip]
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:Inspiration

[David Roberson]

I was wondering about collapsed helium.  Does the Mills theory support the 
concept?

Dave


-Original Message-
From: mixent 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Tue, Aug 14, 2012 11:47 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Inspiration


In reply to  Chemical Engineer's message of Tue, 14 Aug 2012 14:41:17 -0400:
Hi,
>If the Papp engine really works, it shows us that collapsed Helium ions
>work just as well as Collapsed Hydrogen ions...
[snip]

...assuming there is no Hydrogen (in whatever form) in the Papp engine. 
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html


 

Re: [Vo]:Inspiration

[Chemical Engineer]

agreed, my theory can collapse any matter albeit some requiring more energy
than others

On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 11:57 PM,  wrote:

> In reply to  Chemical Engineer's message of Tue, 14 Aug 2012 23:48:29
> -0400:
> Hi,
> [snip]
> >Correct, I can only go on what I am told.
>
> Note that any such H may not be in an obvious form, e.g. lubricating oil,
> plastic, water vapour in the gasses.
>
> >
> >On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 11:47 PM,  wrote:
> >
> >> In reply to  Chemical Engineer's message of Tue, 14 Aug 2012 14:41:17
> >> -0400:
> >> Hi,
> >> >If the Papp engine really works, it shows us that collapsed Helium ions
> >> >work just as well as Collapsed Hydrogen ions...
> >> [snip]
> >>
> >> ...assuming there is no Hydrogen (in whatever form) in the Papp engine.
> >> Regards,
> >>
> >> Robin van Spaandonk
> >>
> >> http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
> >>
> >>
> Regards,
>
> Robin van Spaandonk
>
> http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Inspiration

[mixent]

In reply to  Chemical Engineer's message of Tue, 14 Aug 2012 23:48:29 -0400:
Hi,
[snip]
>Correct, I can only go on what I am told.

Note that any such H may not be in an obvious form, e.g. lubricating oil,
plastic, water vapour in the gasses.

>
>On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 11:47 PM,  wrote:
>
>> In reply to  Chemical Engineer's message of Tue, 14 Aug 2012 14:41:17
>> -0400:
>> Hi,
>> >If the Papp engine really works, it shows us that collapsed Helium ions
>> >work just as well as Collapsed Hydrogen ions...
>> [snip]
>>
>> ...assuming there is no Hydrogen (in whatever form) in the Papp engine.
>> Regards,
>>
>> Robin van Spaandonk
>>
>> http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
>>
>>
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:Inspiration

[Chemical Engineer]

Correct, I can only go on what I am told.

On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 11:47 PM,  wrote:

> In reply to  Chemical Engineer's message of Tue, 14 Aug 2012 14:41:17
> -0400:
> Hi,
> >If the Papp engine really works, it shows us that collapsed Helium ions
> >work just as well as Collapsed Hydrogen ions...
> [snip]
>
> ...assuming there is no Hydrogen (in whatever form) in the Papp engine.
> Regards,
>
> Robin van Spaandonk
>
> http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Inspiration

[mixent]

In reply to  Chemical Engineer's message of Tue, 14 Aug 2012 14:41:17 -0400:
Hi,
>If the Papp engine really works, it shows us that collapsed Helium ions
>work just as well as Collapsed Hydrogen ions...
[snip]

...assuming there is no Hydrogen (in whatever form) in the Papp engine. 
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:Inspiration

[Chemical Engineer]

If the Papp engine really works, it shows us that collapsed Helium ions
work just as well as Collapsed Hydrogen ions...

On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 3:35 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax 
wrote:

> At 01:56 PM 8/13/2012, Bastiaan Bergman wrote:
>
>> http://physics.aps.org/**articles/v5/90
>> [...]
>>
>> "What is not known, and remains under considerable debate even now, is
>> how the energy stored in the magnetic fields is converted into heating
>> the corona "
>>
>> Lesson:
>> We have no freeking clue how fusion works
>>
>
> Well, how hot fusion works is pretty well known. The corona is plasma. If
> I'm correct, it's not hot enough to result in much fusion. The problem here
> isn't a lack of understanding of fusion.
>
> Now, Mills has a theory about the corona. That's another matter and
> doesn't relate to fusion, not there, anyway. In condensed matter, hydrinos,
> if they exist, might catalyze fusion better than electrons can. Very close
> hydrinos would almost certainly catalyze fusion.
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Inspiration

[Abd ul-Rahman Lomax]

At 01:56 PM 8/13/2012, Bastiaan Bergman wrote:

http://physics.aps.org/articles/v5/90
[...]
"What is not known, and remains under considerable debate even now, is
how the energy stored in the magnetic fields is converted into heating
the corona "

Lesson:
We have no freeking clue how fusion works


Well, how hot fusion works is pretty well known. The corona is 
plasma. If I'm correct, it's not hot enough to result in much fusion. 
The problem here isn't a lack of understanding of fusion.


Now, Mills has a theory about the corona. That's another matter and 
doesn't relate to fusion, not there, anyway. In condensed matter, 
hydrinos, if they exist, might catalyze fusion better than electrons 
can. Very close hydrinos would almost certainly catalyze fusion.

Re: [Vo]:Inspiration

[Mauro Lacy]

On 08/13/2012 03:56 PM, Bastiaan Bergman wrote:

http://physics.aps.org/articles/v5/90


specifically:
"The finding revealed that the solar corona was a few million degrees
kelvin, more than three hundred times hotter than the surface of the
sun below, and flew in the face of what was expected from simple
thermodynamics"

"It is now universally accepted that the reservoir of energy stored in
the sun’s atmospheric magnetic field is what heats the localized
plasma in the corona. In simplified terms, the field is generated in
the solar interior as a result of large-scale rotational and
convective motions of the charged plasma, which serve to produce a
strong (100,000  gauss) magnetic field some 200,000km  below the solar
surface "

"What is not known, and remains under considerable debate even now, is
how the energy stored in the magnetic fields is converted into heating
the corona "


It's even worse than that. Recent studies indicate that the convective 
plasma currents that supposedly generate the magnetic field
in the Sun's interior, are 100 times slower than what's needed for the 
theory of magnetic fields formation to be valid:

http://www.nyu.edu/about/news-publications/news/2012/07/09/researchers-create-mri-of-the-suns-interior-motions.html

Here's an alternative explanation:
http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2012/07/09/alpha-and-omega/

The magnetic field is the result of electric currents, but those 
currents are not confined to the Sun's interior. That also explains why 
the corona is hotter. It's in the transitional zone, where accelerations 
due to charge differences are happening.


Regards,
Mauro


Lesson:
We have no freeking clue how fusion works

Re: [Vo]:Inspiration

[Chemical Engineer]

In my Grand Unification Theory of Cold Fusion (Gremlins - collapsed
singularities):

A gremlin that has devoured/collapsed Hydrogen ions is nicknamed a "Hydrino"

A gremlin that has devoured Helium ions is nicknamed a... Helino?

A Helino might belch Hydrinos? or at least something similar.

On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 3:55 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:

> The best explanation for the Corona thermal anomaly is still ignored,
> despite the preponderance of evidence. This is because the source of heat
> is
> NOT nuclear and the mainstream demands that it be nuclear.
>
> The spectrum of the corona is well-known and well studied, and all of the
> hydrino lines are visible according to BLP... many of them are shared with
> hydrogen or helium. However, there are previously unidentified lines in
> astrophysical data going back decades - which matches predicted dihydrino
> molecular rotational transitions to five figures.
>
> The only alternative explanation for the most important of these lines is a
> rare spectral transition of iron - the Fe ion. This lame explanation
> involving iron was the usual response from the mainstream until it was
> pointed out that there is many orders of magnitude too little iron in the
> corona to account for the magnitude of this line.
>
> Nevertheless, Mills is ignored. He may not be 100% correct, but to ignore
> him and his evidence is unscientific.
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Bastiaan Bergman
>
> http://physics.aps.org/articles/v5/90
>
> specifically:
> "The finding revealed that the solar corona was a few million degrees
> kelvin, more than three hundred times hotter than the surface of the
> sun below, and flew in the face of what was expected from simple
> thermodynamics"
>
> "It is now universally accepted that the reservoir of energy stored in
> the sun's atmospheric magnetic field is what heats the localized
> plasma in the corona. In simplified terms, the field is generated in
> the solar interior as a result of large-scale rotational and
> convective motions of the charged plasma, which serve to produce a
> strong (100,000  gauss) magnetic field some 200,000km  below the solar
> surface "
>
> "What is not known, and remains under considerable debate even now, is
> how the energy stored in the magnetic fields is converted into heating
> the corona "
>
> Lesson:
> We have no freeking clue how fusion works
>
>

RE: [Vo]:Inspiration

[Jones Beene]

The best explanation for the Corona thermal anomaly is still ignored,
despite the preponderance of evidence. This is because the source of heat is
NOT nuclear and the mainstream demands that it be nuclear.

The spectrum of the corona is well-known and well studied, and all of the
hydrino lines are visible according to BLP... many of them are shared with
hydrogen or helium. However, there are previously unidentified lines in
astrophysical data going back decades - which matches predicted dihydrino
molecular rotational transitions to five figures. 

The only alternative explanation for the most important of these lines is a
rare spectral transition of iron - the Fe ion. This lame explanation
involving iron was the usual response from the mainstream until it was
pointed out that there is many orders of magnitude too little iron in the
corona to account for the magnitude of this line.

Nevertheless, Mills is ignored. He may not be 100% correct, but to ignore
him and his evidence is unscientific.


-Original Message-
From: Bastiaan Bergman 

http://physics.aps.org/articles/v5/90

specifically:
"The finding revealed that the solar corona was a few million degrees
kelvin, more than three hundred times hotter than the surface of the
sun below, and flew in the face of what was expected from simple
thermodynamics"

"It is now universally accepted that the reservoir of energy stored in
the sun's atmospheric magnetic field is what heats the localized
plasma in the corona. In simplified terms, the field is generated in
the solar interior as a result of large-scale rotational and
convective motions of the charged plasma, which serve to produce a
strong (100,000  gauss) magnetic field some 200,000km  below the solar
surface "

"What is not known, and remains under considerable debate even now, is
how the energy stored in the magnetic fields is converted into heating
the corona "

Lesson:
We have no freeking clue how fusion works

<>

Re: [Vo]:Inspiration

[Terry Blanton]

On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 2:56 PM, Bastiaan Bergman
 wrote:

> Lesson:
> We have no freeking clue how fusion works

The heat of the corona comes from hydrinos and they are thrown off as
dark matter:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2186634/Is-Sun-surrounded-dark-matter-New-simulation-tries-answer-universes-biggest-mysteries-answer-probably.html

T